Fossil Fuels // Current TV

Peak Oil Meets Permaculture: part 1

Kriscan speaks with permaculture designer Ethan Roland of appleseedpermaculture.com to... more

Kriscan
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

Reframing Peak Oil

Kriscan and permaculture designer Ethan Roland, of appleseedpermaculture.com, discuss... more

Kriscan
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

Dear Fossil Fuels

Kriscan breaks her longtime love affair, for something sexier (and more sustainable).

Kriscan
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

"Right now the U.S. has a very real opportunity to transform our economy from one running on fossil fuels to one largely based on clean energy. We are developing the technologies and know-how to accomplish this. We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs. We can reduce energy costs, both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in climate change. With strong leadership we could be moving forward on an aggressive but realistic timeline and an approach that balances costs with real economic gains.

The energy team at Google has been crunching the numbers to see how we could greatly reduce fossil fuel use by 2030. Our analysis, led by Jeffery Greenblatt, suggests a potential path to weaning the U.S. off of coal and oil for electricity generation by 2030 (with some remaining use of natural gas as well as nuclear), and cutting oil use for cars by 40%. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even more ambitious, getting us to carbon-free electricity even sooner. We hope the American public pushes our leaders to embrace it. T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with an interesting plan of his own to massively deploy wind energy, among other things. Other plans have also been developed in recent years that merit attention.

Our goal in presenting this first iteration of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite you to take a look and comment -- or offer an alternative approach if you disagree. With a new Administration and Congress -- and multiple energy-related imperatives -- this is an opportune, perhaps unprecedented, moment to move from plan to action.

Over 22 years this plan could generate billions of dollars in savings and help create millions of green jobs. Many of these high quality, good-paying jobs will be in today's coal and oil producing states.

To get there we need to move immediately on three fronts:

(1) Reduce demand by doing more with less...

(2) Develop renewable energy that is cheaper than coal (RE"Right now the U.S. has a very real opportunity to transform our economy from one... more

SDLN
added this
3 years ago
|
18 comments

VIDEO: Algae to Power Jets?

Research is underway to develop bio-fuel, plastics and livestock feed from algae.

contactkatrinaford
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

"Chemical Equator" Divides Earth's Hemispheres

Matt Kaplan for National Geographic News October 2, 2008 A worldwide weather... more

contactkatrinaford
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

Greenhouse gas emissions shock scientists

The world pumped up emissions of the chief human-produced global warming gas last... more

JanforGore
added this
3 years ago
|
26 comments

Greenland: roar of melting glacier sounds climate change alarm

When are we going to hear the roar of the American people demanding Washington Dc wake... more

JanforGore
added this
3 years ago
|
32 comments

The World Spends $300 Billion Subsidizing Fossil Fuels

The Cost of Eliminating Fossil Fuels? Maybe No More than the Cost of Burning Them.

The world is spending $300 billion every year to subsidize fossil fuels that pollute the air, wreck the climate ... and run the world's economy.

So what if we, as taxpayers, stopped spending $300 billion on coal, oil and natural gas, and started spending it instead on wind, sun and water?

That's the question at the heart of a new report from the United Nations Environment Program, which concludes that eliminating fuel subsidies would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but might just inspire new economic growth. (Further, it concludes that fossil fuels subsidies sold as a way to help the poor keep the lights on actually do more to help the rich.)

“In the final analysis many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating inefficiencies in the global economy – they are thus part of the market failure that is climate change,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said.

The world spends about 0.7% of GDP on fossil fuel subsidies. The cost of curtailing carbon emissions to meet scientific goals by 2050 has been estimated at 1% of GDP. (The cost of not curtailing carbon emissions, measured in weather calamities, mass migrations and the like, could be 5-10% of GDP.)

The problem, of course, is that most nations are not willing to give up fossil fuels, their subsidies, or their profits. We focus on ourselves, and the addiction to oil we all admit to. But think about Russia, fat on oil wealth, and willing to thumb its nose at the international community. Can we reasonably expect that Russia will join in the latest United Nations talks, ongoing this week in Ghana, and agree to slash its carbon emissions?

Russian fossil fuel subsidies, at $40 billion annually, are the largest on the planet, according to the U.N. report. Others that top the list: Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Ukraine and Egypt.

Wiping out oil subsidies, unfortunately, is akin to telling countries -- many of them unwilling to listen to international opinion in the first place -- not to act in their own national interest.

Still, the U.N. report is telling: The cost of transforming an economy to run on renewable fuels always seems daunting, so ingrained are our dependencies on fossil fuels. But if you consider how much is spent to make those fossil fuels affordable in the first place, the price tag doesn't look so daunting.

The Cost of Eliminating Fossil Fuels? Maybe No More than the Cost of Burning Them.... more

jefftego
added this
3 years ago
|
1 comment

The Cost of Eliminating Fossil Fuels? Maybe No More than the Cost of Burning Them

The world is spending $300 billion every year to subsidize fossil fuels that pollute the air, wreck the climate ... and run the world's economy.

So what if we, as taxpayers, stopped spending $300 billion on coal, oil and natural gas, and started spending it instead on wind, sun and water?

That's the question at the heart of a new report from the United Nations Environment Program, which concludes that eliminating fuel subsidies would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but might just inspire new economic growth. (Further, it concludes that fossil fuels subsidies sold as a way to help the poor keep the lights on actually do more to help the rich.)

“In the final analysis many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating inefficiencies in the global economy – they are thus part of the market failure that is climate change,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said.

Isn't it remarkable how subversive the U.N. can be?

The world spends about 0.7% of GDP on fossil fuel subsidies. The cost of curtailing carbon emissions to meet scientific goals by 2050 has been estimated at 1% of GDP. (The cost of not curtailing carbon emissions, measured in weather calamities, mass migrations and the like, could be 5-10% of GDP.)

The problem, of course, is that most nations are not willing to give up fossil fuels, their subsidies, or their profits. We focus on ourselves, and the addiction to oil we all admit to. But think about Russia, fat on oil wealth, and willing to thumb its nose at the international community. Can we reasonably expect that Russia will join in the latest United Nations talks, ongoing this week in Ghana, and agree to slash its carbon emissions?

Russian fossil fuel subsidies, at $40 billion annually, are the largest on the planet, according to the U.N. report. Others that top the list: Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Ukraine and Egypt.

Wiping out oil subsidies, unfortunately, is akin to telling countries -- many of them unwilling to listen to international opinion in the first place -- not to act in their own national interest.

Still, the U.N. report is telling: The cost of transforming an economy to run on renewable fuels always seems daunting, so ingrained are our dependencies on fossil fuels. But if you consider how much is spent to make those fossil fuels affordable in the first place, the price tag doesn't look so daunting.The world is spending $300 billion every year to subsidize fossil fuels that pollute... more

love_is_my_religion
added this
3 years ago
|
2 comments

EPA warns Bush: Adaptation to climate change may not be possible.

The EPA has issued its "Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6; Analyses of Effects... more

stephenthomson
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

Australian, U.S. Scientists Copy Nature to Produce Hydrogen

Australian and U.S. scientists said they have copied a process found in plants that... more

TravG73
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

Did you hear that Alaska has more oil than the Middle East?

Petroleum may be in short supply these days, but the United States does have a related surplus: myths of oil abundance.

You don't have to drill deep into our political discourse to find suspect stories about oil, with politicians peddling the flagrantly false notion that China is producing oil off the coast of Florida, while right-wing activist Jerome Corsi claims oil is not a fossil fuel but "a natural product the Earth generates constantly."

Such declarations serve a political purpose: to make oil drilling seem like an easy solution to our current energy crisis, to marginalize warnings that we are running short on oil, and to stymie efforts at conservation or developing alternatives to fossil fuels.

Along with these high-profile claims, an array of books, Internet forums and YouTube videos constitute a subterranean layer of storytelling, creating a narrative of perpetually cheap domestic oil being denied to us by a dictatorial government. These stories may be working: Offshore oil drilling is now favored by 63 percent of the electorate. But there's another side to them: They reveal our inability to accept that the United States is not always a land of plenty.

"In America, we're a frontier nation, and so the idea is that just beyond the next ridge is the perfect farmland, a giant oil field or an abundant supply of timber," says Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. "People don't like the idea that the frontier is now closed and we've got to live within limits."

These narratives also require spectacularly limited scientific literacy about oil: what it is, how we find it, how much remains.

The evidence for oil's organic origins is robust and diverse. Briefly, it includes biomarkers, or chemical compounds found in both ancient organisms and petroleum formed at the same time; geochemical evidence allowing scientists to match types of oil with their source rocks; lab experiments mimicking oil formation; and literally a world of geological data helping us find oil today.

Thunder Horse, a drilling area that BP operates in the Gulf of Mexico:

Moreover, Thunder Horse also defies "fossil-fuel" oil theorists who like to argue that oil comes from dead dinosaurs and decaying ancient forests. With the water depth of nearly 2 miles, Thunder Horse is truly an ultra-deep project. From the floor of the Gulf, BP has drilled down another 6 miles to hit oil. What evidence is there that any ancient dinosaur ever walked on land that is now 8 miles down? Moreover, geologists identify the deposits in which BP has found oil in the Thunder Horse Field as Miocene, a period that occurred in the Cenozoic Era, some 24,000 years ago. Dinosaurs by then were long gone, having disappeared at the end of the Mesozoic Era, some 65 million years ago.

Corsi makes multiple scientific mistakes here. Scientists never argue that oil comes from "dead dinosaurs and decaying ancient forests." Again, oil derives from fossilized marine microorganisms. The Miocene was not a point in time "24,000 years ago." It lasted from about 5 million years ago to 23 million years ago. In geological language, it's an epoch, not a period, and according to BP, the rocks at Thunder Horse appear to be 5 to 11 million years old. Moreover, oil tends to seep upward over time, so we typically extract it from rocks that are younger than those in which it was formed anyway.

Finally, while dinosaur references are irrelevant to oil, basic geological concepts -- erosion, plate tectonics -- explain how any creature might walk on land that later becomes deeply submerged. The National Research Council suggests students should know these concepts by the eighth grade.

Petroleum may be in short supply these days, but the United States does have a related... more

TravG73
added this
3 years ago
|
33 comments

Making solar cells without using fossil fuels

Solar energy is touted by some as the solution to the world's energy woes. But the process of making the various components requires fossil fuels, both for power and for the components themselves, some of which are based on petroleum.

A new company, BioSolar, aims to kick petroleum to the curb, at least in the realm of building solar photovoltaics, cells of crystalline silicon that turn sunlight into electricity. Such photovoltaic cells rely on conventional plastic polymers to provide a protective backing, also known as backsheets. Those plastics are made from—you guessed it—petroleum.

"It's renewable and you don't use any petroleum," says electrical engineer David Lee, president and CEO of the California-based company about the new product. "The real merit is that we can actually reduce the cost of the backsheet compared to conventional petroleum-based backsheet." Lee claims their backsheets will cost 25 percent less than conventional backsheets, which cost between $0.70 and $1 per square foot.

Already, such backsheets are rising in price, thanks to the recent run-up in world oil costs, at a time when the solar industry is trying to bring down costs to make their technology more competitive with other forms of power generation, such as cheap, plentiful and extremely polluting coal.

BioSolar starts with used cotton rags and turns them into a film of cellulose, a natural fiber. They then blend this film with a type of nylon made from castor beans by Philadephia-based Arkema, Inc. to make the so-called BioBacksheet. Initial testing by the company at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows that this flexible plastic backsheet lasts as long or longer than conventional ones, and keeps out just as much moisture.

In addition to keeping away from petroleum plastics, BioSolar also claims not to be using any genetically modified crops in its product—a further boost to its green credibility. But nearly 90 percent of the U.S. cotton crop is so altered, either to resist insects, herbicides or both, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And cotton cultivation still requires tons of pesticides and fertilizers, both of which are derived, in part, from petroleum.

Regardless, if the cotton and castor-based backsheet proves cheaper than the petroleum version it may help remove a bit more fossil sunshine from the new solar energy. "Our goal is to replace all the petroleum plastic out of the solar cells with this bio-based one," Lee says.Solar energy is touted by some as the solution to the world's energy woes. But... more

smorrisey
added this
3 years ago
|
1 comment

Colorado creating US’s first fossil fuel-free community

The United States’ first net-zero community is coming soon to Arvada Colorado! Dubbed Geos, the development will employ a sterling roster of alternative energy strategies to cut its consumption fossil fuels and become completely self-sustainable. Lately we’ve seen a slew of similar communities springing up around the world, from Canada to India to Estonia and we couldn’t be happier, since it’s future-forward communities such as these that are paving the pathway to a brighter future.

Geos is an innovative net-zero community that will harness energy from the Earth and the Sun to completely eliminate its consumption of fossil fuels. The community will be situated on an area of 25 acres, bordered on the West by the Croke Canal, and on the South by Ralston Creek. It will comprise 250 planned homes ranging from 850 to 3500+ square feet, and four distinct neighborhoods: Entry mixed-Use, Beachfront mixed-use, Garden Community and Checkerboard Blocks. The community will be interlaced with a network of plazas, parks, and trails, and will connect a diverse community of people and lifestyles.

The community plans to employ both active and passive solar energy collection measures to meet daytime heating and electrical energy needs. Homes will be constructed to maximize solar gain and will feature checkerboard placements for complete access to sunlight, east-to-west floorplans to maximize exposure to the Sun, strategic placement of doors and windows, and scientifically engineered awnings. Rooftops will be outfitted with photovoltaic solar panels that will send their excess power to the grid for storage.

For days when the sun doesn’t shine, geothermal energy will be used to meet the energy needs of the community. An underground geothermal exchange system will utilize the Earth’s energy to provide hot water and heating during Winters, while helping to cool buildings during the Summer.

An energy monitoring system will inform Geos homeowners of their energy usage. With this excellent array of features Geos is set to create a remarkable precedent for living an entirely self-sustainable lifestyle.

Designed by Michael Tavel Architects and David Kahn Studio, the community has been conferred the 2006 Colorado AIA Citation Award, the 2006 Denver AIA Honor Award, and the 2006 Denver AIA Sustainability Award. Groundbreaking is scheduled for the fall of 2008, and first homes will be ready by the 2nd quarter of 2009. The United States’ first net-zero community is coming soon to Arvada Colorado!... more

goldenways
added this
3 years ago
|
32 comments

Offshore Drilling = Snake Oil

Beware! The GOP is using this tactic to drive a wedge between the public! They claim... more

benjaminV
added this
3 years ago
|
16 comments

Gore: US should abandon fossil fuels by 2018

And then where would we be? Doesn't Al Gore know it's much better for the US... more

Sons_Of_Liberty
added this
3 years ago
|
0 comments

Gore ends fossil fuels for electricity by 2018

The former vice-president credited with rejuvenating America's environmental... more

bansheewail
added this
3 years ago
|
12 comments

Gore calls for carbon-free electric power

Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity... more

Vierotchka
added this
3 years ago
|
6 comments

NASA: the ocean's carbon balance

"For eons, the world’s oceans have been sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and releasing it again in a steady inhale and exhale. The ocean takes up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis by plant-like organisms (phytoplankton), as well as by simple chemistry: carbon dioxide dissolves in water. It reacts with seawater, creating carbonic acid. Carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions, which combine with carbonate in seawater to form bicarbonate, a form of carbon that doesn’t escape the ocean easily.

Crew members aboard the R/V Roger Revelle retrieve a CTD rosette from the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean. As the device is lowered into the ocean, electronic instruments measure salinity, temperature, and depth. Each of the white bottles collects seawater at different depths for detailed analysis. (Photograph ©2008 Brett longworth.)

As we burn fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels go up, the ocean absorbs more carbon dioxide to stay in balance. But this absorption has a price: these reactions lower the water’s pH, meaning it’s more acidic. And the ocean has its limits. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide leaks out of the ocean like a glass of root beer going flat on a warm day. Carbonate gets used up and has to be re-stocked by upwelling of deeper waters, which are rich in carbonate dissolved from limestone and other rocks.

In the center of the ocean, wind-driven currents bring cool waters and fresh carbonate to the surface. The new water takes up yet more carbon to match the atmosphere, while the old water carries the carbon it has captured into the ocean.

The warmer the surface water becomes, the harder it is for winds to mix the surface layers with the deeper layers. The ocean settles into layers, or stratifies. Without an infusion of fresh carbonate-rich water from below, the surface water saturates with carbon dioxide. The stagnant water also supports fewer phytoplankton, and carbon dioxide uptake from photosynthesis slows. In short, stratification cuts down the amount of carbon the ocean can take up."
cont.
____________________________________________
Good article about the scientific research that goes into determining the natural and human factors behind Co2 absorption and balance in our oceans. And as this article illustrates, humans will have to mitigate their emissions of Co2 in order for our oceans to continue to be able to balance Co2 in a way that sustains them, our planet, and all species that depend on them for life."For eons, the world’s oceans have been sucking carbon dioxide out of the... more

JanforGore
added this
3 years ago
|
4 comments

select your country

Community Spotlight

TAGS

tagged w/ Fossil Fuels

top videos

find current on tv

find current online

recent comments

© 2012 Current TV, LLC All Rights Reserved

the basics

follow us online

tools

stay in touch

© 2012 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved